Fair Use
Fair Use as a Four-Factor Record
Section One-Zero-Seven preamble, purpose and character, nature, amount and substantiality, market effect, transformativeness doctrine, evidence, interactions, uncertainty, and no score.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Scope and honesty note
Jurisdiction: United States federal IP, privacy, consumer-data, and cybersecurity overview as of 2026-08-29; state, international, sectoral, contractual, factual, procedural, remedial, and version differences matter. Synthetic records are classroom inputs, not legal, licensing, infringement, registration, patentability, trademark, trade-secret, privacy, HIPAA, consumer-reporting, security, incident-response, criminal, health, identity or compliance advice. The model cannot determine ownership, protection, validity, infringement, fair use, obviousness, confusion, secrecy, license compatibility, consent, authorization, breach, liability, reporting, access, eligibility or outcome. Cite, expose gaps, abstain, and hand off.
See the essential structure first
Start with this deliberately incomplete structure, then use the pinned authorities, worked application, exceptions, and handoff below. This deliberately incomplete preview has 4 nodes; exceptions and legal consequences remain in the sourced prose below.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Begin with IP, privacy, or security doctrine
Fair use is a contextual statutory standard, not a checklist score. Section One-Zero-Seven lists four factors in order: purpose and character of the use, including commercial versus nonprofit educational character; nature of the copyrighted work; amount and substantiality used relative to the whole; and effect on the potential market for or value of the work. Transformativeness is judicial doctrine within factor one, not a fifth statutory factor or automatic defense. Illustrative preamble purposes do not guarantee fair use, and no fixed percentage is safe. Threshold protectability and the specific section One-Zero-Six right remain separate.
Fair-use statute
The provision pins the illustrative purposes and four factors in their enacted order. Verbatim source text: “§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101 Oct. 19, 1976 90 Stat. 2546 Pub. L. 101–650, title VI, § 607 Dec. 1, 1990 104 Stat. 5132 Pub. L. 102–492 Oct. 24, 1992 106 Stat. 3145 Historical and Revision Notes General Background of the Problem. The judicial doctrine of fair use, one of the most important and well-established limitations on the exclusive right of copyright owners, would be given express statutory recognition for the first time in section 107. The claim that a defendant’s acts constituted a fair use rather than an infringement has been raised as a defense in innumerable copyright actions over the years, and there is ample case law recognizing the existence of the doctrine and applying it. The examples enumerated at page 24 of the Register’s 1961 Report, while by no means exhaustive, give some idea of the sort of activities the courts might regard as fair use under the circumstances: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways, but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been adopted in section 107: “(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” These criteria are relevant in determining whether the basic doctrine of fair use, as stated in the first sentence of section 107, applies in a particular case: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” The specific wording of section 107 as it now stands is the result of a process of accretion, resulting from the long controversy over the related problems of fair use and the reproduction (mostly by photocopying) of copyrighted material for educational and scholarly purposes. For example, the reference to fair use “by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means” is mainly intended to make clear that the doctrine has as much application to photocopying and taping as to older forms of use; it is not intended to give these kinds of reproduction any special status under the fair use provision or to sanction any reproduction beyond the normal and reasonable limits of fair use. Similarly, the newly-added reference to “multiple copies for classroom use” is a recognition that, under the proper circumstances of fairness, the doctrine can be applied to reproductions of multiple copies for the members of a class. The Committee has amended the first of the criteria to be considered—“the purpose and character of the use”—to state explicitly that this factor includes a consideration of “whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes.” This amendment is not intended to be interpreted as any sort of not-for-profit limitation on educational uses of copyrighted works. It is an express recognition that, as under the present law, the commercial or non-profit character of an activity, while not conclusive with respect to fair use, can and should be weighed along with other factors in fair use decisions. General Intention Behind the Provision. The statement of the fair use doctrine in section 107 offers some guidance to users in determining when the principles of the doctrine apply. However, the endless variety of situations and combinations of circumstances that can rise in particular cases precludes the formulation of exact rules in the statute. The bill endorses the purpose and general scope of the judicial doctrine of fair use, but there is no disposition to freeze the doctrine in the statute, especially during a period of rapid technological change. Beyond a very broad statutory explanation of what fair use is and some of the criteria applicable to it, the courts must be free to adapt the doctrine to particular situations on a case-by-case basis. Section 107 is intended to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way. Intention as to Classroom Reproduction. Although the works and uses to which the doctrine of fair use is applicable are as broad as the copyright law itself, most of the discussion of section 107 has centered around questions of classroom reproduction, particularly photocopying. The arguments on the question are summarized at pp. 30–31 of this Committee’s 1967 report (H.R. Rep. No. 83, 90th Cong., 1st Sess.), and have not changed materially in the intervening years. The Committee also adheres to its earlier conclusion, that “a specific exemption freeing certain reproductions of copyrighted works for educational and scholarly purposes from copyright control is not justified.” At the same time the Committee recognizes, as it did in 1967, that there is a “need for greater certainty and protection for teachers.” In an effort to meet this need the Committee has not only adopted further amendments to section 107, but has also amended section 504(c) to provide innocent teachers and other non-profit users of copyrighted material with broad insulation against unwarranted liability for infringement. The latter amendments are discussed below in connection with Chapter 5 of the bill [§ 501 et seq. of this title]. In 1967 the Committee also sought to approach this problem by including, in its report, a very thorough discussion of “the considerations lying behind the four criteria listed in the amended section 107, in the context of typical classroom situations arising today.” This discussion appeared on pp. 32–35 of the 1967 report, and with some changes has been retained in the Senate report on S. 22 (S. Rep. No. 94–473, pp. 63–65). The Committee has reviewed this discussion, and considers that it still has value as an analysis of various aspects of the problem. At the Judiciary Subcommittee hearings in June 1975, Chairman Kastenmeier and other members urged the parties to meet together independently in an effort to achieve a meeting of the minds as to permissible educational uses of copyrighted material. The response to these suggestions was positive, and a number of meetings of three groups, dealing respectively with classroom reproduction of printed material, music, and audio-visual material, were held beginning in September 1975. In a joint letter to Chairman Kastenmeier, dated March 19, 1976 , the representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee of Educational Institutions and Organizations on Copyright Law Revision, and of the Authors League of America, Inc., and the Association of American Publishers, Inc., stated: You may remember that in our letter of March 8, 1976 we told you that the negotiating teams representing authors and publishers and the Ad Hoc Group had reached tentative agreement on guidelines to insert in the Committee Report covering educational copying from books and periodicals under Section 107 of H.R. 2223 and S. 22 [this section], and that as part of that tentative agreement each side would accept the amendments to Sections 107 and 504 [this section and section 504 of this title ] which were adopted by your Subcommittee on March 3, 1976 . We are now happy to tell you that the agreement has been approved by the principals and we enclose a copy herewith. We had originally intended to translate the agreement into language suitable for inclusion in the legislative report dealing with Section 107 [this section], but we have since been advised by committee staff that this will not be necessary. As stated above, the agreement refers only to copying from books and periodicals, and it is not intended to apply to musical or audiovisual works. The full text of the agreement is as follows: Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not-For-Profit Educational Institutions The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of H.R. 2223 [this section]. The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future; that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future; and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines. Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Revision Bill [this section]. There may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines stated below may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use. I. Single Copying for Teachers A single copy may be made of any of the following by or for a teacher at his or her individual request for his or her scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to teach a class: A. A chapter from a book; B. An article from a periodical or newspaper; C. A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not from a collective work; D. A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper; II. Multiple Copies for Classroom Use Multiple copies (not to exceed in any event more than one copy per pupil in a course) may be made by or for the teacher giving the course for classroom use or discussion; provided that: A. The copying meets the tests of brevity and spontaneity as defined below; and, B. Meets the cumulative effect test as defined below; and C. Each copy includes a notice of copyright. Definitions Brevity (i) Poetry: (a) A complete poem if less than 250 words and if printed on not more than two pages or, (b) from a longer poem, an excerpt of not more than 250 words. (ii) Prose: (a) Either a complete article, story or essay of less than 2,500 words, or (b) an excerpt from any prose work of not more than 1,000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less, but in any event a minimum of 500 words. [Each of the numerical limits stated in “i” and “ii” above may be expanded to permit the completion of an unfinished line of a poem or of an unfinished prose paragraph.] (iii) Illustration: One chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture per book or per periodical issue. (iv) “Special” works: Certain works in poetry, prose or in “poetic prose” which often combine language with illustrations and which are intended sometimes for children and at other times for a more general audience fall short of 2,500 words in their entirety. Paragraph “ii” above notwithstanding such “special works” may not be reproduced in their entirety; however, an excerpt comprising not more than two of the published pages of such special work and containing not more than 10% of the words found in the text thereof, may be reproduced. Spontaneity (i) The copying is at the instance and inspiration of the individual teacher, and (ii) The inspiration and decision to use the work and the moment of its use for maximum teaching effectiveness are so close in time that it would be unreasonable to expect a timely reply to a request for permission. Cumulative Effect (i) The copying of the material is for only one course in the school in which the copies are made. (ii) Not more than one short poem, article, story, essay or two excerpts may be copied from the same author, nor more than three from the same collective work or periodical volume during one class term. (iii) There shall not be more than nine instances of such multiple copying for one course during one class term. [The limitations stated in “ii” and “iii” above shall not apply to current news periodicals and newspapers and current news sections of other periodicals.] III. Prohibitions as to I and II Above Notwithstanding any of the above, the following shall be prohibited: (A) Copying shall not be used to create or to replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works. Such replacement or substitution may occur whether copies of various works or excerpts therefrom are accumulated or reproduced and used separately. (B) There shall be no copying of or from works intended to be “consumable” in the course of study or of teaching. These include workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and test booklets and answer sheets and like consumable material. (C) Copying shall not: (a) substitute for the purchase of books, publishers’ reprints or periodicals; (b) be directed by higher authority; (c) be repeated with respect to the same item by the same teacher from term to term. (D) No charge shall be made to the student beyond the actual cost of the photocopying. Agreed March 19, 1976 . Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision: By Sheldon Elliott Steinbach. Author-Publisher Group: Authors League of America: By Irwin Karp, Counsel. Association of American Publishers, Inc.: By Alexander C. Hoffman. Chairman, Copyright Committee. In a joint letter dated April 30, 1976 , representatives of the Music Publishers’ Association of the United States, Inc., the National Music Publishers’ Association, Inc., the Music Teachers National Association, the Music Educators National Conference, the National Association of Schools of Music, and the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision, wrote to Chairman Kastenmeier as follows: During the hearings on H.R. 2223 in June 1975, you and several of your subcommittee members suggested that concerned groups should work together in developing guidelines which would be helpful to clarify Section 107 of the bill [this section]. Representatives of music educators and music publishers delayed their meetings until guidelines had been developed relative to books and periodicals. Shortly after that work was completed and those guidelines were forwarded to your subcommittee, representatives of the undersigned music organizations met together with representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision to draft guidelines relative to music. We are very pleased to inform you that the discussions thus have been fruitful on the guidelines which have been developed. Since private music teachers are an important factor in music education, due consideration has been given to the concerns of that group. We trust that this will be helpful in the report on the bill to clarify Fair Use as it applies to music. The text of the guidelines accompanying this letter is as follows: The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of H.R. 2223 [this section]. The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future; that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future, and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines. Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Revision Bill [this section]. There may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines stated below may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use. A. Permissible Uses 1. Emergency copying to replace purchased copies which for any reason are not available for an imminent performance provided purchased replacement copies shall be substituted in due course. 2. (a) For academic purposes other than performance, multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10% of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil. (b) For academic purposes other than performance, a single copy of an entire performable unit (section, movement, aria, etc.) that is, (1) confirmed by the copyright proprietor to be out of print or (2) unavailable except in a larger work, may be made by or for a teacher solely for the purpose of his or her scholarly research or in preparation to teach a class. 3. Printed copies which have been purchased may be edited or simplified provided that the fundamental character of the work is not distorted or the lyrics, if any, altered or lyrics added if none exist. 4. A single copy of recordings of performances by students may be made for evaluation or rehearsal purposes and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. 5. A single copy of a sound recording (such as a tape, disc or cassette) of copyrighted music may be made from sound recordings owned by an educational institution or an individual teacher for the purpose of constructing aural exercises or examinations and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. (This pertains only to the copyright of the music itself and not to any copyright which may exist in the sound recording.) B. Prohibitions 1. Copying to create or replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works. 2. Copying of or from works intended to be “consumable” in the course of study or of teaching such as workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and answer sheets and like material. 3. Copying for the purpose of performance, except as in A(1) above. 4. Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above. 5. Copying without inclusion of the copyright notice which appears on the printed copy. The problem of off-the-air taping for nonprofit classroom use of copyrighted audiovisual works incorporated in radio and television broadcasts has proved to be difficult to resolve. The Committee believes that the fair use doctrine has some limited application in this area, but it appears that the development of detailed guidelines will require a more thorough exploration than has so far been possible of the needs and problems of a number of different interests affected, and of the various legal problems presented. Nothing in section 107 or elsewhere in the bill is intended to change or prejudge the law on the point. On the other hand, the Committee is sensitive to the importance of the problem, and urges the representatives of the various interests, if possible under the leadership of the Register of Copyrights, to continue their discussions actively and in a constructive spirit. If it would be helpful to a solution, the Committee is receptive to undertaking further consideration of the problem in a future Congress. The Committee appreciates and commends the efforts and the cooperative and reasonable spirit of the parties who achieved the agreed guidelines on books and periodicals and on music. Representatives of the American Association of University Professors and of the Association of American Law Schools have written to the Committee strongly criticizing the guidelines, particularly with respect to multiple copying, as being too restrictive with respect to classroom situations at the university and graduate level. However, the Committee notes that the Ad Hoc group did include representatives of higher education, that the stated “purpose of the * * * guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use” and that the agreement acknowledges “there may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines * * * may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.” The Committee believes the guidelines are a reasonable interpretation of the minimum standards of fair use. Teachers will know that copying within the guidelines is fair use. Thus, the guidelines serve the purpose of fulfilling the need for greater certainty and protection for teachers. The Committee expresses the hope that if there are areas where standards other than these guidelines may be appropriate, the parties will continue their efforts to provide additional specific guidelines in the same spirit of good will and give and take that has marked the discussion of this subject in recent months. Reproduction and Uses for Other Purposes. The concentrated attention given the fair use provision in the context of classroom teaching activities should not obscure its application in other areas. It must be emphasized again that the same general standards of fair use are applicable to all kinds of uses of copyrighted material, although the relative weight to be given them will differ from case to case. The fair use doctrine would be relevant to the use of excerpts from copyrighted works in educational broadcasting activities not exempted under section 110(2) or 112, and not covered by the licensing provisions of section 118. In these cases the factors to be weighed in applying the criteria of this section would include whether the performers, producers, directors, and others responsible for the broadcast were paid, the size and nature of the audience, the size and number of excerpts taken and, in the case of recordings made for broadcast, the number of copies reproduced and the extent of their reuse or exchange. The availability of the fair use doctrine to educational broadcasters would be narrowly circumscribed in the case of motion pictures and other audiovisual works, but under appropriate circumstances it could apply to the nonsequential showing of an individual still or slide, or to the performance of a short excerpt from a motion picture for criticism or comment. Another special instance illustrating the application of the fair use doctrine pertains to the making of copies or phonorecords of works in the special forms needed for the use of blind persons. These special forms, such as copies in Braille and phonorecords of oral readings (talking books), are not usually made by the publishers for commercial distribution. For the most part, such copies and phonorecords are made by the Library of Congress’ Division for the Blind and Physically Handicapped with permission obtained from the copyright owners, and are circulated to blind persons through regional libraries covering the nation. In addition, such copies and phonorecords are made locally by individual volunteers for the use of blind persons in their communities, and the Library of Congress conducts a program for training such volunteers. While the making of multiple copies or phonorecords of a work for general circulation requires the permission of the copyright owner, a problem addressed in section 710 of the bill, the making of a single copy or phonorecord by an individual as a free service for blind persons would properly be considered a fair use under section 107. A problem of particular urgency is that of preserving for posterity prints of motion pictures made before 1942. Aside from the deplorable fact that in a great many cases the only existing copy of a film has been deliberately destroyed, those that remain are in immediate danger of disintegration; they were printed on film stock with a nitrate base that will inevitably decompose in time. The efforts of the Library of Congress, the American Film Institute, and other organizations to rescue and preserve this irreplaceable contribution to our cultural life are to be applauded, and the making of duplicate copies for purposes of archival preservation certainly falls within the scope of “fair use.” When a copyrighted work contains unfair, inaccurate, or derogatory information concerning an individual or institution, the individual or institution may copy and reproduce such parts of the work as are necessary to permit understandable comment on the statements made in the work. The Committee has considered the question of publication, in Congressional hearings and documents, of copyrighted material. Where the length of the work or excerpt published and the number of copies authorized are reasonable under the circumstances, and the work itself is directly relevant to a matter of legitimate legislative concern, the Committee believes that the publication would constitute fair use. During the consideration of the revision bill in the 94th Congress it was proposed that independent newsletters, as distinguished from house organs and publicity or advertising publications, be given separate treatment. It is argued that newsletters are particularly vulnerable to mass photocopying, and that most newsletters have fairly modest circulations. Whether the copying of portions of a newsletter is an act of infringement or a fair use will necessarily turn on the facts of the individual case. However, as a general principle, it seems clear that the scope of the fair use doctrine should be considerably narrower in the case of newsletters than in that of either mass-circulation periodicals or scientific journals. The commercial nature of the user is a significant factor in such cases: Copying by a profit-making user of even a small portion of a newsletter may have a significant impact on the commercial market for the work. The Committee has examined the use of excerpts from copyrighted works in the art work of calligraphers. The committee believes that a single copy reproduction of an excerpt from a copyrighted work by a calligrapher for a single client does not represent an infringement of copyright. Likewise, a single reproduction of excerpts from a copyrighted work by a student calligrapher or teacher in a learning situation would be a fair use of the copyrighted work. The Register of Copyrights has recommended that the committee report describe the relationship between this section and the provisions of section 108 relating to reproduction by libraries and archives. The doctrine of fair use applies to library photocopying, and nothing contained in section 108 “in any way affects the right of fair use.” No provision of section 108 is intended to take away any rights existing under the fair use doctrine. To the contrary, section 108 authorizes certain photocopying practices which may not qualify as a fair use. The criteria of fair use are necessarily set forth in general terms. In the application of the criteria of fair use to specific photocopying practices of libraries, it is the intent of this legislation to provide an appropriate balancing of the rights of creators, and the needs of users. Editorial Notes 1992— Pub. L. 102–492 inserted at end “The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.” 1990— Pub. L. 101–650 substituted “sections 106 and 106A” for “section 106” in introductory provisions. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries Amendment by Pub. L. 101–650 effective 6 months after Dec. 1, 1990 , see section 610 of Pub. L. 101–650 , set out as an Effective Date note under section 106A of this title .” Source: 17 U.S.C. § 107; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/federal/title_17/section_107/title17_sec107_3a91a0915cb6/107_limitations_on_exclusive_rights_fair_use_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Rights being limited
The exclusive-rights provision anchors the particular act for which fair use is asserted. Verbatim source text: “§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101 Oct. 19, 1976 90 Stat. 2546 Pub. L. 101–318, § 3(d) July 3, 1990 104 Stat. 288 Pub. L. 101–650, title VII, § 704(b)(2) Dec. 1, 1990 104 Stat. 5134 Pub. L. 104–39, § 2 Nov. 1, 1995 109 Stat. 336 Pub. L. 106–44, § 1(g)(2) Aug. 5, 1999 113 Stat. 222 Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13210(4)(A) Nov. 2, 2002 116 Stat. 1909 Historical and Revision Notes General Scope of Copyright. The five fundamental rights that the bill gives to copyright owners—the exclusive rights of reproduction, adaptation, publication, performance, and display—are stated generally in section 106. These exclusive rights, which comprise the so-called “bundle of rights” that is a copyright, are cumulative and may overlap in some cases. Each of the five enumerated rights may be subdivided indefinitely and, as discussed below in connection with section 201, each subdivision of an exclusive right may be owned and enforced separately. The approach of the bill is to set forth the copyright owner’s exclusive rights in broad terms in section 106, and then to provide various limitations, qualifications, or exemptions in the 12 sections that follow. Thus, everything in section 106 is made “subject to sections 107 through 118”, and must be read in conjunction with those provisions. The exclusive rights accorded to a copyright owner under section 106 are “to do and to authorize” any of the activities specified in the five numbered clauses. Use of the phrase “to authorize” is intended to avoid any questions as to the liability of contributory infringers. For example, a person who lawfully acquires an authorized copy of a motion picture would be an infringer if he or she engages in the business of renting it to others for purposes of unauthorized public performance. Rights of Reproduction, Adaptation, and Publication. The first three clauses of section 106, which cover all rights under a copyright except those of performance and display, extend to every kind of copyrighted work. The exclusive rights encompassed by these clauses, though closely related, are independent; they can generally be characterized as rights of copying, recording, adaptation, and publishing. A single act of infringement may violate all of these rights at once, as where a publisher reproduces, adapts, and sells copies of a person’s copyrighted work as part of a publishing venture. Infringement takes place when any one of the rights is violated: where, for example, a printer reproduces copies without selling them or a retailer sells copies without having anything to do with their reproduction. The references to “copies or phonorecords,” although in the plural, are intended here and throughout the bill to include the singular (1 U.S.C. § 1). Reproduction .—Read together with the relevant definitions in section 101, the right “to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords” means the right to produce a material object in which the work is duplicated, transcribed, imitated, or simulated in a fixed form from which it can be “perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” As under the present law, a copyrighted work would be infringed by reproducing it in whole or in any substantial part, and by duplicating it exactly or by imitation or simulation. Wide departures or variations from the copyrighted work would still be an infringement as long as the author’s “expression” rather than merely the author’s “ideas” are taken. An exception to this general principle, applicable to the reproduction of copyrighted sound recordings, is specified in section 114. “Reproduction” under clause (1) of section 106 is to be distinguished from “display” under clause (5). For a work to be “reproduced,” its fixation in tangible form must be “sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.” Thus, the showing of images on a screen or tube would not be a violation of clause (1), although it might come within the scope of clause (5). Preparation of Derivative Works .—The exclusive right to prepare derivative works, specified separately in clause (2) of section 106, overlaps the exclusive right of reproduction to some extent. It is broader than that right, however, in the sense that reproduction requires fixation in copies or phonorecords, whereas the preparation of a derivative work, such as a ballet, pantomime, or improvised performance, may be an infringement even though nothing is ever fixed in tangible form. To be an infringement the “derivative work” must be “based upon the copyrighted work,” and the definition in section 101 refers to “a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” Thus, to constitute a violation of section 106(2), the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form; for example, a detailed commentary on a work or a programmatic musical composition inspired by a novel would not normally constitute infringements under this clause. Use in Information Storage and Retrieval Systems .—As section 117 declares explicitly, the bill is not intended to alter the present law with respect to the use of copyrighted works in computer systems. Public Distribution .—Clause (3) of section 106 establishes the exclusive right of publication: The right “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” Under this provision the copyright owner would have the right to control the first public distribution of an authorized copy or phonorecord of his work, whether by sale, gift, loan, or some rental or lease arrangement. Likewise, any unauthorized public distribution of copies or phonorecords that were unlawfully made would be an infringement. As section 109 makes clear, however, the copyright owner’s rights under section 106(3) cease with respect to a particular copy or phonorecord once he has parted with ownership of it. Rights of Public Performance and Display. Performing Rights and the “For Profit” Limitation .—The right of public performance under section 106(4) extends to “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works and sound recordings” and, unlike the equivalent provisions now in effect, is not limited by any “for profit” requirement. The approach of the bill, as in many foreign laws, is first to state the public performance right in broad terms, and then to provide specific exemptions for educational and other nonprofit uses. This approach is more reasonable than the outright exemption of the 1909 statute. The line between commercial and “nonprofit” organizations is increasingly difficult to draw. Many “non-profit” organizations are highly subsidized and capable of paying royalties, and the widespread public exploitation of copyrighted works by public broadcasters and other noncommercial organizations is likely to grow. In addition to these trends, it is worth noting that performances and displays are continuing to supplant markets for printed copies and that in the future a broad “not for profit” exemption could not only hurt authors but could dry up their incentive to write. The exclusive right of public performance is expanded to include not only motion pictures, including works recorded on film, video tape, and video disks, but also audiovisual works such as filmstrips and sets of slides. This provision of section 106(4), which is consistent with the assimilation of motion pictures to audiovisual works throughout the bill, is also related to amendments of the definitions of “display” and “perform” discussed below. The important issue of performing rights in sound recordings is discussed in connection with section 114. Right of Public Display .—Clause (5) of section 106 represents the first explicit statutory recognition in American copyright law of an exclusive right to show a copyrighted work, or an image of it, to the public. The existence or extent of this right under the present statute is uncertain and subject to challenge. The bill would give the owners of copyright in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works”, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly.” Definitions. Under the definitions of “perform,” “display,” “publicly,” and “transmit” in section 101, the concepts of public performance and public display cover not only the initial rendition or showing, but also any further act by which that rendition or showing is transmitted or communicated to the public. Thus, for example: a singer is performing when he or she sings a song; a broadcasting network is performing when it transmits his or her performance (whether simultaneously or from records); a local broadcaster is performing when it transmits the network broadcast; a cable television system is performing when it retransmits the broadcast to its subscribers; and any individual is performing whenever he or she plays a phonorecord embodying the performance or communicates the performance by turning on a receiving set. Although any act by which the initial performance or display is transmitted, repeated, or made to recur would itself be a “performance” or “display” under the bill, it would not be actionable as an infringement unless it were done “publicly,” as defined in section 101. Certain other performances and displays, in addition to those that are “private,” are exempted or given qualified copyright control under sections 107 through 118. To “perform” a work, under the definition in section 101, includes reading a literary work aloud, singing or playing music, dancing a ballet or other choreographic work, and acting out a dramatic work or pantomime. A performance may be accomplished “either directly or by means of any device or process,” including all kinds of equipment for reproducing or amplifying sounds or visual images, any sort of transmitting apparatus, any type of electronic retrieval system, and any other techniques and systems not yet in use or even invented. The definition of “perform” in relation to “a motion picture or other audiovisual work” is “to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.” The showing of portions of a motion picture, filmstrip, or slide set must therefore be sequential to constitute a “performance” rather than a “display”, but no particular order need be maintained. The purely aural performance of a motion picture sound track, or of the sound portions of an audiovisual work, would constitute a performance of the “motion picture or other audiovisual work”; but, where some of the sounds have been reproduced separately on phonorecords, a performance from the phonorecord would not constitute performance of the motion picture or audiovisual work. The corresponding definition of “display” covers any showing of a “copy” of the work, “either directly or by means of a film, slide, television image, or any other device or process.” Since “copies” are defined as including the material object “in which the work is first fixed,” the right of public display applies to original works of art as well as to reproductions of them. With respect to motion pictures and other audiovisual works, it is a “display” (rather than a “performance”) to show their “individual images nonsequentially.” In addition to the direct showings of a copy of a work, “display” would include the projection of an image on a screen or other surface by any method, the transmission of an image by electronic or other means, and the showing of an image on a cathode ray tube, or similar viewing apparatus connected with any sort of information storage and retrieval system. Under clause (1) of the definition of “publicly” in section 101, a performance or display is “public” if it takes place “at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.” One of the principal purposes of the definition was to make clear that, contrary to the decision in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributing Corp. v. Wyatt , 21 C.O.Bull. 203 (D.Md.1932), performances in “semipublic” places such as clubs, lodges, factories, summer camps, and schools are “public performances” subject to copyright control. The term “a family” in this context would include an individual living alone, so that a gathering confined to the individual’s social acquaintances would normally be regarded as private. Routine meetings of businesses and governmental personnel would be excluded because they do not represent the gathering of a “substantial number of persons.” Clause (2) of the definition of “publicly” in section 101 makes clear that the concepts of public performance and public display include not only performances and displays that occur initially in a public place, but also acts that transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to the public by means of any device or process. The definition of “transmit”—to communicate a performance or display “by any device or process whereby images or sound are received beyond the place from which they are sent”—is broad enough to include all conceivable forms and combinations of wired or wireless communications media, including but by no means limited to radio and television broadcasting as we know them. Each and every method by which the images or sounds comprising a performance or display are picked up and conveyed is a “transmission,” and if the transmission reaches the public in my [any] form, the case comes within the scope of clauses (4) or (5) of section 106. Under the bill, as under the present law, a performance made available by transmission to the public at large is “public” even though the recipients are not gathered in a single place, and even if there is no proof that any of the potential recipients was operating his receiving apparatus at the time of the transmission. The same principles apply whenever the potential recipients of the transmission represent a limited segment of the public, such as the occupants of hotel rooms or the subscribers of a cable television service. Clause (2) of the definition of “publicly” is applicable “whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.” Editorial Notes 2002— Pub. L. 107–273 substituted “122” for “121” in introductory provisions. 1999— Pub. L. 106–44 substituted “121” for “120” in introductory provisions. 1995—Par. (6). Pub. L. 104–39 added par. (6). 1990— Pub. L. 101–650 substituted “120” for “119” in introductory provisions. Pub. L. 101–318 substituted “119” for “118” in introductory provisions. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries Amendment by Pub. L. 104–39 effective 3 months after Nov. 1, 1995 , see section 6 of Pub. L. 104–39 , set out as a note under section 101 of this title . Amendment by Pub. L. 101–650 applicable to any architectural work created on or after Dec. 1, 1990 , and any architectural work, that, on Dec. 1, 1990 , is unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings, except that protection for such architectural work under this title terminates on Dec. 31, 2002 , unless the work is constructed by that date, see section 706 of Pub. L. 101–650 , set out as a note under section 101 of this title . Pub. L. 101–318, § 3(e)(3) , July 3, 1990 , 104 Stat. 289 , provided that: “The amendment made by subsection (d) [amending this section] shall be effective as of November 16, 1988 .” Pub. L. 115–264, title I, § 105 , Oct. 11, 2018 , 132 Stat. 3726 , provided that: “(a) Definition .— In this section, the term ‘performing rights society’ has the meaning given the term in section 101 of title 17 , United States Code. “(b) Notification of Review.— “(1) In general .— The Department of Justice shall provide timely briefings upon request of any Member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives regarding the status of a review in progress of a consent decree between the United States and a performing rights society. “(2) Confidentiality and deliberative process .— In accordance with applicable rules relating to confidentiality and agency deliberative process, the Department of Justice shall share with such Members of Congress detailed and timely information and pertinent documents related to the consent decree review. “(c) Action Before Motion to Terminate.— “(1) In general .— Before filing with the appropriate district court of the United States a motion to terminate a consent decree between the United States and a performing rights society, including a motion to terminate a consent decree after the passage of a specified period of time, the Department of Justice shall— “(A) notify Members of Congress and committees of Congress described in subsection (b); and “(B) provide to such Members of Congress and committees information regarding the impact of the proposed termination on the market for licensing the public performance of musical works should the motion be granted. “(2) Notification.— “(A) In general .— During the notification described in paragraph (1), and not later than a reasonable time before the date on which the Department of Justice files with the appropriate district court of the United States a motion to terminate a consent decree between the United States and a performing rights society, the Department of Justice should submit to the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a written notification of the intent of the Department of Justice to file the motion. “(B) Contents .— The notification provided in subparagraph (A) shall include a written report to the chairmen and ranking members of the Committee on the Judiciary of [the] Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives setting forth— “(i) an explanation of the process used by the Department of Justice to review the consent decree; “(ii) a summary of the public comments received by the Department of Justice during the review by the Department; and “(iii) other information provided to Congress under paragraph (1)(B). “(d) Scope .— This section applies only to a consent decree between the United States and a performing rights society.”” Source: 17 U.S.C. § 106; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/federal/title_17/section_106/title17_sec106_7dd8140c6510/106_exclusive_rights_in_copyrighted_works_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Protected-expression boundary
Subject-matter text prevents fair use from substituting for the threshold separation of protected expression from ideas, systems or facts. Verbatim source text: “§102. Subject matter of copyright: In general (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. ( Pub. L. 94–553, title I, §101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2544 ; Pub. L. 101–650, title VII, §703, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5133 .)” Source: 17 U.S.C. § 102; https://www.neochart.com/catalog/federal/title_17/section_102/title17_sec102_292bd01e605d/102_subject_matter_of_copyright_in_general_0001/index.html; data via neochart.com, snapshot 2026-08.
Pin the synthetic asset and data record
A synthetic four-factor record populates source-work and version fields, implicated right, research and teaching purpose, new search and snippet functions, commercial context, work nature, publication, page and byte counts, central diagram, qualitative importance, audience, access controls, substitution evidence, licensing evidence, alternatives, uncertainty and reviewer notes.
Work the source-bound application
The API facts first leave copyright protection as facts, while copied explanatory prose and diagram remain in the fair-use record. The teaching and research purpose supports but does not decide factor one; search functionality may be transformative doctrine evidence. Three pages are measured against the whole and the central diagram receives separate qualitative attention. Market evidence distinguishes substitution from speculative harm. The model presents four sourced factor packets and no numeric total or conclusion.
Read the populated audit record
The fair-use record contains work, version, protected element, right implicated, use, preamble purpose, commerciality, nonprofit status, new purpose, transformativeness evidence, bad-faith field, factual nature, creative nature, publication, total amount, amount used, percentage field, qualitative heart, audience, access, substitution, actual market, potential market, licensing market, market evidence, alternative, safeguard, factor uncertainty, interaction note, and reviewer. The artifact contains 17 populated rows.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Read the complete record
The complete record keeps sources, stated facts, and questions for review separate. Pinned authorities: Verbatim statute or bounded case excerpt. 17 U.S.C. § 107: Fair-use statute: The provision pins the illustrative purposes and four factors in their enacted order.. 17 U.S.C. § 106: Rights being limited: The exclusive-rights provision anchors the particular act for which fair use is asserted.. 17 U.S.C. § 102: Protected-expression boundary: Subject-matter text prevents fair use from substituting for the threshold separation of protected expression from ideas, systems or facts.. Synthetic asset and data record: Classroom facts, not ownership or compliance conclusions. Source work: Published technical manual contains factual API table, explanatory prose, diagrams and creative illustrations. Use: Researcher copies three pages including one central diagram into searchable nonprofit teaching corpus and displays bounded snippets. Evidence: Purpose, audience, new function, commercial context, publication, factual and creative nature, quantity, qualitative importance, licensing market, substitution, security and alternatives. Legal and technical trace: Regime, scope, elements, limits, provenance, safeguards and handoff. Preamble: Criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple classroom copies, scholarship and research are illustrative, not automatic safe harbors. Factor one: Purpose and character, including commercial or nonprofit educational nature; transformativeness and bad faith are judicial doctrines within the analysis. Factor two: Nature of the copyrighted work, including factual or creative character and publication status. Factor three: Amount and substantiality of portion used in relation to copyrighted work as a whole, quantitatively and qualitatively. Factor four: Effect of use upon potential market for or value of copyrighted work, including substitution and cognizable licensing markets. Interaction: Factors are weighed together in context; no factor, percentage, purpose label, transformative claim or market assertion is dispositive. Record: Work version, right, use, copy amount, qualitative portion, access, audience, transformation evidence, market evidence, license alternatives, safeguards and reviewer.
Narrow summary
Apply the four statutory factors in order, treat transformativeness as doctrine within factor one, weigh contextual evidence without scores, and return no fair-use conclusion.